![]() |
||
|
||
|
||
Dear FO° Reader,
Roberta in Switzerland and Peter in France, here. We greet you all from our homes in the “old world.” I am fascinated by people discovering that they have agency. In these times when our choices seem so vast, we often freeze and let an algorithm choose for us. Yet Peter Isackson, our wise strategist who lives in France and attentively watches local events, brought up an interesting point. He suggests that we could express the hypothesis that the stakes are much higher and deeper than any detail — say, a law, a budget, a scandal. These are mere diversions; the true culprit is the whole political system. Nobody wants to take on the real issues with the seriousness and dedication they deserve. Ecology and the collapse of many ecosystems, as well as the political system, institutions and methods of governance that increasingly appear to be in an advancing state of decomposition, are not being addressed. Does the social concept we used to call society still exist? The idea and conscience of a commonwealth are disappearing. What could come next if not chaos? Institutions in crisis: more than politics at stake
An analysis by the Financial Times highlights the fact that France’s political system is nearing a breaking point. The country has endured multiple governments in quick succession, disrespect of democracy, persistent parliamentary deadlock and an erosion of institutional credibility, marking a period of rapid and pervasive political decomposition, with public trust at historic lows. Surveys from one of France’s Grandes Ecoles, Sciences Po, reveal notably high levels of public mistrust toward institutions, especially compared to Germany, Italy and Poland. This stagnation isn’t a technical glitch — it is symptomatic of governance under strain and democratic norms fraying at the edges. “Outside France, there is palpable concern about the nation’s political, fiscal and economic outlook, but much commentary focuses on relatively short-term questions. Will the divided legislature approve Prime Minister François Bayrou’s 2025 budget?” Source: Mistrust, Grumpiness and Political Deadlock in France – Financial Times We can safely say that even if controversies like the Loi Duplomb — a law that will reintroduce neurotoxic pesticides in France — are treated merely as political distractions, they deflect attention from urgent systemic fault lines:
Without intentional renewal of institutions, common governance mechanisms and ecological stewardship, the alternative may be covert chaos, not crisis managed through constitutional means. Source: [Decoding France] – 2025: Hope Beneath the Political Gridlock? | Institut Montaigne Beyond ecology, yes, but the climate crisis won’t go away
Recent commentary underscores how ecological concerns — once politically central — have been sidelined, treated as secondary technicalities rather than existential priorities. Policy reversals, institutional inertia and the silencing of ecological voices illustrate a broader departure from shared civic purpose. The real question becomes: Does French civic society still exist in meaningful form? If the public sphere loses capacity for collective action — anchored in environmental responsibility or democratic participation — France risks descending into fragmentation. “France is not experiencing a pause in its ecological transition—it is experiencing a reversal. What was once framed as a national necessity is now treated as an inconvenience. The dismantling of low-emission zones, moratoriums on renewables, and the silence around biodiversity are not isolated events, but signs of a deeper political unwillingness to confront the climate crisis.”
Vic Langston, The Geopolitical Economist, Medium But yes, French civil society exists outside of the political arena
In France, when a petition reaches 500,000 verified signatures within six months on the Assemblée nationale’s official platform, the National Assembly is obliged to rediscuss the law. Source: Loi Duplomb : la pétition contre le texte franchit la barre des deux millions de signatures – Le Figaro A petition launched by Éléonore Pattery, a French 23-year-old Masters student in Qualified Scheduling Entity and Corporate Social Responsibility Risk Management, reached a staggering two million signatures in about two weeks. Her text will appear in history books. But the majority at the National Assembly has already stated that there’s no way the law will be challenged. How did the Loi Duplomb get voted in? What does it imply? Initially introduced in November 2024 by Senators Laurent Duplomb (of The Republicans, Les Républicains) and Franck Menonville (of the Union of Democrats and Independents), the law underwent revisions through the Senate in late January. The National Assembly rejected it in May 2025. Following a joint committee agreement on June 30, the Senate approved it again on July 2. The National Assembly definitively adopted it on July 8, 2025, with 316 votes in favor, 223 against and 25 abstentions. The government had invoked accelerated legislative procedure from January 27, expediting its passage through Parliament. “The draft law on agriculture proposed by Senators Duplomb and Menonville—criticized by the left for allowing the reintroduction of a banned pesticide—passed a key milestone on Monday with an agreement reached between deputies and senators on the full text, paving the way for its final adoption.”
— Agence France-Presse, June 30, 2025 Source: Agriculture: compromis trouvé au Parlement sur la loi Duplomb, avec le retour décrié d’un pesticide France 24 In La Vie Publique, we read that “this bill aims to respond to requests expressed by agricultural sectors. In particular, it opens the possibility of temporarily reauthorizing a neonicotinoid insecticide, acetamiprid. Provisions also cover livestock and agricultural pond projects and controls by the French Office for Biodiversity.”
Who are these agricultural sectors? Notably, the main and most powerful agribusiness lobbying group in France is the FNSEA — Fédération Nationale des Syndicats d’Exploitants Agricoles, or the National Federation of Agricultural Holders’ Unions. It argues that French agriculture is penalized by a strict regulation of pesticides, stricter than other partner and competitor countries in the European Union. But that’s not all. Besides pesticides, the Loi Duplomb regulates several other controversial aspects of agriculture and land use in France. Here’s a breakdown of key issues that the law touches: Water management — authorization of “méga-bassines” The law simplifies the legal procedures for building large water storage basins (méga-bassines), which are artificial reservoirs used to irrigate crops. Critics argue this favors industrial-scale monoculture and aggravates water conflicts during droughts, while proponents claim it’s necessary for “water security.” It loosens environmental assessments and public consultation requirements for such projects. Intensive livestock farming — easing expansion rules The law eases regulations on enlarging intensive animal farming operations, especially for poultry and swine. This includes simplified permit procedures for building or expanding large animal facilities. Environmental groups warn this will increase pollution, antibiotic use and animal suffering, while weakening zoning and impact studies. Reform of environmental protections The law reintroduces “cumulative exemptions,” allowing farmers to bypass multiple environmental protections if “economic risk” is cited. It weakens the principle of non-regression, meaning that environmental protections can now be rolled back in certain situations. Advisory role of cooperatives and agri-suppliers It repeals the 2015 ban that prevented companies selling pesticides (like cooperatives or distributors) from also advising farmers. This recreates a conflict of interest that was previously banned to prevent the overuse of chemicals driven by profit motives. Reduction of legal recourse and citizen involvement The law limits the scope of public participation, such as public inquiries and environmental hearings, in approving agricultural or industrial projects. And let’s not forget the great literary minds of France: Sartre
So, yes, Peter, I agree that the Loi Duplomb might not be the most important subject. But like the twirling crumpled papers in La Nausée, it gives us a glimpse, a symptom, a disturbance in the fabric of appearances. In French novelist Jean-Paul Sartre’s novel, protagonist Antoine Roquentin watches a piece of paper spinning in the wind and suddenly perceives the absurdity of existence — the gap between surface order and the underlying chaos. The paper is just paper, but it unsettles him because it makes him see differently, sense the strangeness of the world beneath routine perception. “Everything is gratuitous. This garden, this town, myself. When you understand that, everything changes, it all becomes unreal, and a bit frightening.”
— Jean-Paul Sartre, La Nausée
This is why the stakes are not about pesticides, nor even agriculture. The law serves as a crack in the edifice through which we glimpse the deeper questions: Do we still believe in the idea of a society? Of shared responsibility? Of public truth? If we do not, then the real danger is not scandal or reform failure. It is a silent slide into democratic and ecological chaos, managed not through participation and dialogue, but through disengagement and denial. Wishing you a thoughtful week, Roberta Campani Communications & Outreach |
||
We are an independent nonprofit organization. We do not have a paywall or ads. We believe news
must
be free for everyone from Detroit to Dakar. Yet servers, images, newsletters, web developers and
editors cost money.
So, please become a recurring donor to keep Fair Observer free, fair and independent. ![]()
|
||
|
||
About Publish with FO° FAQ Privacy Policy Terms of Use Contact |
Support Fair Observer
We rely on your support for our independence, diversity and quality.
For more than 10 years, Fair Observer has been free, fair and independent. No billionaire owns us, no advertisers control us. We are a reader-supported nonprofit. Unlike many other publications, we keep our content free for readers regardless of where they live or whether they can afford to pay. We have no paywalls and no ads.
In the post-truth era of fake news, echo chambers and filter bubbles, we publish a plurality of perspectives from around the world. Anyone can publish with us, but everyone goes through a rigorous editorial process. So, you get fact-checked, well-reasoned content instead of noise.
We publish 2,500+ voices from 90+ countries. We also conduct education and training programs
on subjects ranging from digital media and journalism to writing and critical thinking. This
doesn’t come cheap. Servers, editors, trainers and web developers cost
money.
Please consider supporting us on a regular basis as a recurring donor or a
sustaining member.
Will you support FO’s journalism?
We rely on your support for our independence, diversity and quality.
Comment